Abstract
Effective clinical decision procedures must balance multiple competing objectives such as time-to-decision, acquisition costs, and accuracy. We describe and evaluate POSEIDON, a data-driven method for PrOspective SEquentIal DiagnOsis with Neutral zones to individualize clinical classifications. We evaluated the framework with an application in which the algorithm sequentially proposes to include cognitive, imaging, or molecular markers if a sufficiently more accurate prognosis of clinical decline to manifest Alzheimer’s disease is expected. The algorithm chose to include optional invasive markers in 37 percent of cases at the cost of 1 percent lower accuracy. Applied to longitudinal data, POSEIDON selected 14 percent of all available measurements and concluded after an average follow-up time of 0.74 years at the expense of five percent lower accuracy. While effective in obtaining timely and economical decisions, our multi-objective evaluation implies that the implementation into consequential clinical applications remains controversial because of the intrinsic dependence on inherently subjective prescribed cost parameters.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by National Institute of Aging through RF1 742 AG054409. AA was funded through grants 191026 and 206795 awarded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Data collection was funded through the ADNI and AIBL initiatives (http://adni.loni.usc.edu/about/, https://www.aibl.csiro.au).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Data used in this manuscript were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and the Australian Imaging Biomarkers and Lifestyle flagship study of aging (AIBL). Additional information and access to data can be obtained at https://www.adni-info.org, https://adni.loni.org, and https://www.aibl.csiro.au.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This revision includes additional experiments and evaluations covering multi-objective aspects of the analysis. The discussion and abstract now include a section highlighting that wile effective, the application to consequential clinical application will be controversial, because the outcome depends on inherently subjective prescribed cost parameters.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors